Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Saul Foundation for Progress Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1.7M
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$600k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172024.

International$3.5MHealth$2.8MPhilanthropy$1.3MCrime & Legal$991kScience & Tech$500kEducation$291kAnimals$100kHuman Services$2k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k2 grants · $390k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.3M
$300,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$44M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CAMBRIDGE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONSULTANTS$600,000
NOMI NETWORK INC$392,000
INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE$300,000
WATER FOR SOUTH SUDAN INC$244,330
FISTULA FOUNDATION$145,925
02The need
03

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

Your US giving — 86% of grant dollars ($8.1M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 14% that went abroad ($1.4M) is mapped below.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY18–18, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%COMMUNITY HELP IN PARK SLOPE INC: $2k → 20%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

Beyond the US — 14% of all-years giving ($1.4M)

3 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
France$600k · 2 grants
United Kingdom$485k · 2 grants
Canada$291k · 2 grants

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.

04

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 6% of Saul Foundation for Progress Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.

Saul Foundation for Progress Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 19% directed abroad (not shown)

Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Your edge
repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$7.0M · 8 repeat orgs$1.2M to everyone else

8 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
4

Total granted

$7.0M
$852k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+22%
+281%

Still filing today

75%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $300k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
InternationalHealthCrime & LegalHuman ServicesPhilanthropyOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • CR
    CAMBRIDGE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONSULTANTS
    5× · 2019–2024 · $2.0M · revenue +491% · 66% of their budget
  • IR
    IBIS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INC
    5× · 2019–2023 · $1.7M · revenue +16%
  • NN
    NOMI NETWORK INC
    3× · 2021–2024 · $991k · revenue +40%

Funded once

  • TI
    THE IVORY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2018 · $500k
  • TC
    THE CLEAR FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $250k · revenue +130%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $100k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Mali Health Organizing Project Inc

Mali Health improves maternal and child health by supporting women, communities, and the community health system to develop local solutions that ensure every mother and child has access to quality primary care. We aim to end preventable…

Community Improvement
2
International Rivers Network

International Rivers protects rivers and defends the rights of communities that depend on them.

Environment
3
Pathfinder International

Pathfinder expands access to sexual and reproductive health services, opening the door to opportunities for women and all individuals to thrive-economically, educationally, and civically. driven by our country-led leadership and local…

International
4
Global Financial Integrity

Global Financial Integrity works to curtail illicit financial flows by conducting groundbreaking research, promoting pragmatic policy solutions, and advising governments.

International
5
Intrahealth International Inc

Our mission is to improve the performance of health workers and strengthen the systems in which they work.

Health
6
Gardens for Health International

Gardens for Health International works to provide lasting agricultural solutions to chronic childhood malnutrition

International
7
Circle of Health International

COHIs mission is to work with women and their communities in times of crisis and disaster to ensure access to quality reproductive, maternal and newborn care. See Sch O for full mission.

8
The International Refugee Rights Initiative

To enhance the protection of rights of the displaced worldwide by the provision of advice and assistance on the application of international law, the conducting of research on the interpretation and application of international law and the…

9
Trustafrica

Promote peace, democracy and economic prosperity in Africa.

International
10
Shift Project Ltd

At Shift, we have one purpose: to transform how business gets done in order to ensure respect for peoples lives and dignity. We believe that the best way to advance our mission is by working directly with Businesses to help shape their…

International
11
MedGlobal Inc

MedGlobal is a humanitarian non-governmental organization working to serve vulnerable communities around the world by providing innovative, free, and sustainable healthcare. Our health services support refugees, displaced persons, and…

Health
12
International Medical Corps

To save lives & relieve suffering through health interventions & related activities that strengthen communities affected by conflict, natural disasters & disease outbreaks.

International

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ibis Reproductive Health Inc and the most unlike its peers is Cambridge Reproductive Health Consultants. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

05the grantee network

11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 11 of the 15 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

IBIS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INC — $1,672,500 · HealthIBIS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INCThe Fistula Foundation — $750,123 · HealthThe Fistula FoundationGYNUITY HEALTH PROJECTS INC — $360,000 · HealthGYNUITY HEALTH PROJECTS INCCAMBRIDGE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONSULTANTS — $1,996,110 · InternationalCAMBRIDGE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CON…Water for South Sudan Inc — $483,145 · InternationalWater for South Sudan IncInternational Rescue Committee INC — $300,000 · InternationalInternational Rescue Committee IN…THE IVORY FOUNDATION — $500,000 · OtherTHE IVORY FOUNDA…DEVELOPMENT MEDIA INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATES — $485,000 · OtherDEVELOPMENT MEDI…UNIVERSITE LAVAL — $290,722 · OtherUNIVERSITE LAVALIndividual grant recipient — $100,000 · OtherIndividual grant…NOMI NETWORK INC — $991,246 · Crime & LegalNOMI NETWOR…FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND — $825,000 · Community ImprovementFIDELITY …BANK OF AMERICA CHARITABLE GIFT FD — $500,000 · PhilanthropyTHE CLEAR FUND — $250,000 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY HELP IN PARK SLOPE INC — $2,000 · Human Services
Health$2,782,623International$2,779,255Other$1,375,722Crime & Legal$991,246Community Improvement$825,000Philanthropy$750,000Human Services$2,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetCAMBRIDGE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONSULTANTS — $1,996,110 over 5y, 66% of budgetIBIS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INC — $1,672,500 over 5y, 7.6% of budgetNOMI NETWORK INC — $991,246 over 3y, 7.6% of budgetFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND — $825,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetThe Fistula Foundation — $750,123 over 4y, 1.5% of budgetWater for South Sudan Inc — $483,145 over 2y, 11% of budgetGYNUITY HEALTH PROJECTS INC — $360,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC — $300,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CLEAR FUND — $250,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budget
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

National Philanthropic TrustPA11.3× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization Saul Foundation for Progress Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 30%5%19%42%75%your share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 9%
  • Ibis Reproductive Health Inc9% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
typical government reliance, FY2025

Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 15 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph